Pls. we had a typo in my last email. We sent before also an email supporting option
2
For all pls. consider this definitively:
WE SUPPORT OPTION 2
Thanks Nii. Hope to see you soon (maybe in Korea http://www.apricot2000.ne.kr)?
Regards
Carlos Vera
CORPECE
Ecuador
Carlos Vera wrote:
> We support proposal 1
>
> Carlos Vera
> CORPECE
> Ecuador
>
> Kent Crispin wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 08:22:52PM -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:
> > > The issue is not the region that the elected NC member comes from. The point
> > > is that that person was elected by a greater number of NCDNHC members than
> > > the 2 additional people on the AdCom.
> >
> > Obviously, your are totally missing the point of the geographical
> > diversity requirement. It is SUPPOSED to help minority positions get
> > MORE than their numerically computed share of representation. That is
> > the entire intent. It is *supposed* to counter the "will of the
> > majority" by giving regions represented by a minority of participants a
> > compensating guaranteed representation.
> >
> > The geographical diversity requirement, in other words, provides
> > protection against the "tyranny of the majority". The "alternates"
> > proposal, on the other hand, reinforces the power of the majority.
> >
> > > The point is also that the 5 people
> > > elected to the AdCom do not necessarily have the same views.
> >
> > Indeed. They almost certainly will not. However, the ICANN structure
> > is supposed to work by "rough consensus", not by the rule of the bare
> > majority. A "rough consensus" regime basically gives veto powers to
> > relatively small blocks. Concretely, Kathy tried to run through a
> > position paper that favored large numbers of new gTLDs, but that
> > failed, because there is a legitimated position within the NCDNHC that
> > questions that stance.
> >
> > > Again, this
> > > difference of opinion may have nothing to do with region they come from.
> >
> > And, as you point out, that is irrelevant. The real issue is
> > enfranchisement of minority interests, whatever they may be. The
> > "alternates" proposal enhances the power of the majority, regardless of
> > regional issues.
> >
> > But in a consensus oriented regime, that is precisely what you don't
> > want.
> >
> > > Here is an example of what I am concerned about. Suppose Kent and Dany are
> > > both running for NC. I cast my vote for Dany. Let's say Dany gets 100 votes
> > > and comes in first place, and Kent gets 20 votes and comes in 4th. Now, I
> > > and 100 members are happy with Dany as our representative. We voted for him.
> > > But if Dany cannot make a meeting, you are saying that Kent will be my NC
> > > representative. That will make me and probably 100 other members very
> > > unhappy. Our new NC rep has only the support of 20 members, and does not
> > > reflect our views.
> >
> > If I represent a significant minority, our NC rep should indeed be
> > taking my position into account. THAT IS WHAT WE WANT TO HAPPEN. We
> > *don't* want our NC reps ignoring minority interests.
> >
> > --
> > Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
> > kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain
> >
> > ---
> > You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as: cvera@INTERACTIVE.NET.EC
> > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ncdnhc-discuss-1729M@lyris.isoc.org
--- You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as: Kent@SONGBIRD.COM To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ncdnhc-discuss-1729M@lyris.isoc.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 09 2000 - 13:20:37 PDT